Free speech does not give people the right to say something and not be ridiculed.

Exactly. No one says Ken (or other creationists) shouldn't have the right to speak. I mean, I'd prefer if they stopped being wrong, but they have all the right to voice their beliefs, and said right should be defended when necessary.

Also, I thought a very revealing part of the debate was when Ham touched on nihilism. He asked Bill why he does what he does if he's going to end up dead anyway. This really shows Ham's true colors. Without god, he can't find motivation to do anything, and his life is pointless. Once you take that into consideration, it makes sense why he is so adamant that he will never be convinced that his model is wrong. He clings so strongly to god because his life depends on it.

Also, I thought a very revealing part of the debate was when Ham touched on nihilism. He asked Bill why he does what he does if he's going to end up dead anyway. This really shows Ham's true colors. Without god, he can't find motivation to do anything, and his life is pointless. Once you take that into consideration, it makes sense why he is so adamant that he will never be convinced that his model is wrong. He clings so strongly to god because his life depends on it.

I think it is more likely that if Ken Ham became an atheist he would realize that one can live without a celestial father, rather than falling in to some kind of despair. As is often pointed out in these debates, humans are incredibly adept at creating meaning where it suits them.

I agree with that, but by the same token, there have been many people that have found solace in religion after leading a life of hopeless despair. One of my very best friends is a perfect example of this. Whether or not Christianity's doctrine is correct, it is an undeniable source of community and satisfaction for many people. Even Bill acknowledged this.

I agree with that, but by the same token, there have been many people that have found solace in religion after leading a life of hopeless despair. One of my very best friends is a perfect example of this. Whether or not Christianity's doctrine is correct, it is an undeniable source of community and satisfaction for many people. Even Bill acknowledged this.

Apologize to Tom Bishop for creating a thread so closely related without noticing this one.

When I visited Ham's Creation Museum just two days ago, I noticed this debate for sale on DVD as well as full transcripts in book form at the bookstore.

Wanted to mention that there exists a school of thought these days (to which I also subscribe) which goes well beyond merely asserting that dinosaurs and men coexisted. Most cryptozoogists argue that dinosaurs still live. Furthermore, most of the well known cryptozoologists these days also happen to be agnostics such as Loren Coleman and Mark Hall among most others although a few cryptozoologists are also young earth creationists such as Chad Arment and myself.

I know it has been a year, but I've made progress on other fronts. Never the less, much thanks to Tom Bishop for posting the video. I am going to watch all of it. Also thanks to Bill Nye for participating in this debate.

I thought about Tom's comment about dinosaurs and men, and I think essentially two groups exist who consider much of the other group's beliefs absurd.

I'd like for Bill Nye to press the points about dinosaurs and men coexisting as well as earth's age less than 10,000 years and all the others. To the extent such debates avoid these things, they are pointless and boring since that is the only purpose to debate exactly those points.

To be honest, I think Ham would win in such points if he was only half as good a debater as Bill Nye because Ham has the truth on his side just like Rowbotham did when he won all those debates against the nineteenth century scientific establishment. If anyone should argue that's not the same, then I would politely remind them that Samuel Rowbotham was himself a young earth creationist as was Charles Johnson.

Nye would find Ham's Achilles heel if focused on the flat earth bible which Ham inconsistently and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge.

I'd like to see a debate between Nye and a geocentrist like John Hanson.

they still ascribe to the basic 'verities'.....the traditional, wrong-headed conception of the Universe and bogus historical events like, for instance, 'the Holocaust' not to mention bogus recent events like 9/11 and Sandy Hook;

the "creationists" also ignore the well-established theories of the likes of Rupert Sheldrake even though they support the Bible;

they even ignore stuff like "the Bible codes" which very strongly support the veracity of the Bible;(the "gap theory" vis á vis Genesis 1:1/1:2 is also castigated by them even though they can't really deal satisfactorily with 'the age of the Earth' and can't really explain when and how Lucifer/Satan fell......both of these are glaring anomalies in their YEC model)

and...they studiously ignore previously well-recognised Biblical books like the Books of Enoch, Jasher and Jubilees.....not to mention the couple of dozen epistles and gospels that have been deliberately excluded from the New Testament;(even their preferred version of the Bible....the King James....is 'off beam'....the most accurate English translation is and always has been the Douay-Rheims version....from the Vulgate by way of St Jerome)

the reason?

they're "gun shy" and don't want to 'rock the boat' too much and get "too far off left field" with TPTB

Actually I have found that some "atheists", mainly people who watch the Ancient Aliens show on the Used To Be About History Channel, do believe #11

This one? Hmmm. I wonder why that is... maybe because from what we know from observing the universe, aliens existing is incredibly likely - way more likely than an all powerful God. Maybe because science leaves room for aliens in other parts of the universe? The only real issue that crops up with this is the seemingly impossibility of FTL travel.

The same thing that makes the mind vulnerable to religion makes it vulnerable to equally wacky extra-terrestrial phenomenon. I see people who watch Ancient Aliens and say "yeah that's totally what happened" as no different from religious fanatics. I find it hilarious, in fact, that a religious person would find the two opposing theories comparable enough to comment on the parallels but not see the asinine nature of their own belief system.

Ghost of V

The same thing that makes the mind vulnerable to religion makes it vulnerable to equally wacky extra-terrestrial phenomenon. I see people who watch Ancient Aliens and say "yeah that's totally what happened" as no different from religious fanatics. I find it hilarious, in fact, that a religious person would find the two opposing theories comparable enough to comment on the parallels but not see the asinine nature of their own belief system.

Are you denying the possibility of ETs, or just that they have visited Earth? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.